Get board

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: the required OAuth scope (boards:read) and a hint about the returned payload (pin/follower counts), which no output schema supplies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scoping scope detail last. Nothing is redundant or padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the action, identifier source, auth scope, and partial return contents. It stops short of describing error/not-found behavior or the full response shape, but the essentials are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the note that board_id comes from pinterest_list_boards and that ad_account_id is only for shared-asset business accounts. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a single board by id") and notes the returned data (pin and follower counts). The word "single" implicitly separates it from pinterest_list_boards and the get/update/delete board family, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The presence of "by id" implies the tool requires a known board id, and the scope line signals read permission requirements, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., use list_boards to discover ids first, or get_board when you already have one).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.